Second, Bettman has to be done now. I can't believe he didn't make any "worst CEO's" list this year but the ordeal did have to receive a comment from a sitting US President (comments from a sitting Canadian PM would just draw political hot water).

Bettman is not going anywhere, not until the ramifications of this new CBA are played out, and the owners see the state of revenues after a full season under the new agreement. That means his job is safe at least until 2014/2015.

Also, he's not a CEO. He answers to the owners of the 30 franchises, not to shareholders. And frankly, Obama had no business putting his nose in it.

Wouldn't surprise me at all to see Bettman go. There are already reports that numerous management/owner types are upset that the NHL threw away 3 months and didn't get as much in return as they expected. There have also been reports that Bettman caved and made this deal because he was receiving a great deal of pressure from league sponsors that were starting to make noise about not wanting to invest anymore.

I think the theory that Bettman was under the thumb of a handful of rich owners was successfully squashed when one of those same owners mentioned came out against the lockout through unofficial channels. Besides, those very same owners had everything to gain to not having a cap - they were the reason for it in the first place.

He'll get the benefit of this season but I'll be very surprised if there's a next.

He had little control over the first strike - the owners did that with the their failure to see the game had changed with Alan Eagleson rightfully in jail. Did Bettman do a go job after the second contract reversing the trends caused by his first? The fact that there was another lockout shows the second contract he forced was a complete failure. The owners should be wondering why they gave him a raise.

What kind of response is this? Do you expect governors who are unhappy three months was lost to vote to send the same people back to the drawing board?

My response was to Proto, in regards to owners who felt they could have gotten a better deal. I was just factually stating that they can repeal the deal if they are unhappy with it. What was your problem with my response, exactly?

Seems like skirting the issue he pointed out which is that there are - apparently - owners unhappy with the concessions received given the amount of games lost.. voting down this CBA would be giving the guy you're not happy with a mandate to keep doing what he's been doing.